http://www.sportinglife.com/football/news/...p;TEAMHD=soccer

I thought we couldn't increase the Bridge for health and safety reasons!!

Edited May 21, 201016 yr by bennyboy1976

Don't like the idea of naming rights.

Don't like these new rules that are in place, it's just stopping teams that are trying to grow.

Don't like the fact that we won't be expanding the stadium anytime soon.

I do like that it's Friday and that we are champions, though.

Edited May 21, 201016 yr by Zola

Don't like the idea of naming rights.

Me neither. That would be bollocks.

It's different when a club move to a brand new stadium. But How can you change the name of something that's been there for 100+ years. Whatever it might get rebranded to, it will ALWAYS be Stamford Bridge.

but the good news is we're staying at SB...naming rights is not good but at least we get the chance to stay at our home...going to the soul-less emirates every season is a reminder of what could happen

Don't know if this is posted somewhere here in the forum but this is taken from Buck's interview (www.chelseafc.com -->BB's interview part 1):

Does that include new signings?

I have said that in every year there is some refreshing of the squad and maybe we can expect three or four in and three or four out. But this year I think Carlo has said two or three in and two or three out and he is very satisfied with the current squad. We can expect a couple of changes but that is just the nature of football, you can't have the jigsaw puzzle together and that is it forever.

Carlo wants 2-3 in and out. Sounds about right to me. One marquee hopefully and two young players. We have so many young ones coming that we can't get too many senior players...

"You'll never win anything with kidssss"

How epic would it be if a few youngsters came through and lit the league up. Kakuta, step up son, your time is now!

Stoch? Bring him back.

I havent seen Kakuta since that penalty miss in the league cup!

Whatever it might get rebranded to, it will ALWAYS be Stamford Bridge.

Indeed, so if a company wants to pay Chelsea £100m for nothing then let them!

Buck is more or less saying we need to money and fast. We don't have a big stadium like Arsneal or Utd so we have to be creative. Ultimately I would like to see a new stadium in the next 10-15 years.

I'm a bit nervous to think about what Chelsea will be doing in 15 years.

We will be winning the lot with our Youth products.

I just hope Roman is as enthusiastic then!

At least looking at his happy face after EPL Triumph it seems he is very much enthusiastic about the Bridge :)

Edited May 21, 201016 yr by Jawan

Indeed, so if a company wants to pay Chelsea £100m for nothing then let them!

Exactly, they can call it what they like for as much as they want to pay. We will always know it as the Bridge, it will always be the Bridge.

Excellent interview! Superb translation on www.chelseafc.com.pl :)

The whole self-sufficiency thing doesn't even make sense anyways. Clubs that can't support themselves or their spending will eventually run out of cash flow until they balance out. People like Roman are ok spending cash to increase the size and value of a club but if it was with the promise of indefinite losses infinitely he would or others like him would never invest cash in clubs. As mentioned this really only hurts small clubs looking to break into the top 4 and is a foolish and rash rule.

I'll believe it when I see it. Suppose none of the big teams comply with the new regulations.

"OK, Chelsea, Man Utd, Arsenal, Barca, Milan, Real, Bayern, etc., you guys are all out of the champions league. We don't want our sponsors reaching your massive fan bases. We don't care about selling 40, 50, 60k+ plus tickets to matches. We don't want Messi, Ronaldo, Drogba, Rooney playing in our league. We will find the three teams in each of your country that actually comply with these rules and play the champions league with them. Were sure the League will be just as good and just as profitable."